llvmbot
commented
1 year ago @llvm/issue-subscribers-openmp
Open kloczek opened 1 year ago
llvmbot
commented
1 year ago @llvm/issue-subscribers-openmp
shiltian
commented
1 year ago We didn't test using GCC as the compiler and libomp as the runtime library. Some of the failed tests here are because we use compiler arguments only supported in LLVM/Clang. Some of them are because GCC doesn't support the feature we test. I don't think this is a regression. I'm also not sure our policy regarding GCC support. However, I think it might make sense to disable some tests when the compiler is GCC.
kloczek
commented
1 year ago Hmm .. if some units are ony suited for clang/llvm when gcc is used that unit shpud be IMO skipped or clang/llvm used. Nevetheless using gcc allowed find that detect that libomp is not LTO ready co probably the same unit shoud be called against gcc and clang/llvm. Am I right? 🤔
shiltian
commented
1 year ago Hmm .. if some units are ony suited for clang/llvm when gcc is used that unit shpud be IMO skipped or clang/llvm used.
Yes, I agree. We need that improvement. AFAIK we also didn't test using LTO with libomp.
kloczek
commented
1 year ago Just retested 16.0.3 and looks like test suite still is failing
BTW .. why not move all tesing directly to cmake ctest units? 🤔
+ /usr/bin/ctest --test-dir x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --output-on-failure --force-new-ctest-process -j48
Internal ctest changing into directory: /home/tkloczko/rpmbuild/BUILD/openmp-16.0.3.src/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
Test project /home/tkloczko/rpmbuild/BUILD/openmp-16.0.3.src/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
No tests were found!!!Generally LLVM uses lit test infrastructure. We follow the same.
kloczek
commented
1 year ago Is it possible to disable some lit usit executiona as I have now failing some units? 🤔 (ctest allows exclude unit execution)
shiltian
commented
1 year ago Is it possible to disable some lit usit executiona as I have now failing some units? 🤔 (ctest allows exclude unit execution)
It supports --filter-out argument. You can refer to https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/lit.html for more information.
kloczek
commented
1 year ago OK will try that.
Nevertheless I think that as LLVM uses cmake maintaining its own testing tooling may save some time which could be spent on real LLVM development.
Someone have been thinking about that? And/or if not is it worth to open about that RFE for next major release? 🤔
shiltian
commented
1 year ago I'm not aware of any RFC for that, but feel free to provide any feedback at https://discourse.llvm.org.
jprotze
commented
1 year ago fe7f620ed6e30015267d131bb753fd408bb3dd8c, 39a959eac793ee43008d6755206b6684fc11872d, dedcda45c4fc3bdf8b702e5ee7b943f4c0908ae6 should fix the failing tests for GCC 10/11/12
The approach to filter tests based on compilers is to mark the compiler (probably with version) as UNSUPPORTED/REQUIRED in the test.
Regarding lit+FileCheck vs. CTests: I think the LLVM testing infrastructure is way more flexible and mature. Another significant advantage is that all information regarding the test (build/check) is contained in the test source file.
jdoerfert
commented
1 year ago FWIW, we won’t ditch lit any time soon.
kloczek
commented
11 months ago Just FTR updated test suite output with 17.0.2:
After disable LTO (reportes in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/58472 test suite is failing: